The European Union's Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) recently conducted a public consultation on the 2013 update of its Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA). Here are the results of that consultation:

Yes, Kirk's promotions, this lowly forum, and the wikipedia articles have had some effect.I even found out that one of my nieces, a very wired professional costumer in Burbank, had heard of it... I was astonished.I think a nuclear engineer would have to be dead not to know of it.

I read through it to find scores of people saying "try thorium!" and them saying "yeah, we hear you but thorium is dumb because it's hard to fabricate fuel and we are thinking of a fast spectrum MSR".

Quote:

The Molten Salt ReactorThe annex on Molten Salt Reactors, MSR, highlights the potential of recent conceptual developments on fast neutron spectrum molten salt reactors (MSFRs) using fluoride salts. MSFRs open promising possibilities to exploit the thorium cycle and to contribute to significantly diminishing the radiotoxic inventory from the spent fuels of present reactors, in particular by lowering the masses of transuranium elements, similarly to transmutation proposals based on fast reactors and ADS using fuel based on uranium, plutonium or inert matrices.

Nevertheless, specific technological challenges must still be addressed and a safety approach must be established before these MSFR reactors can become a reality. As a consequence, the annex discusses the R&D needed on: structural materials, fuel salt chemistry and properties, fuel salt clean-up, and system design, operation and safety. The document includes a planning, based on the Generation IV MSFR Master Plan, aiming at establishing the viability of the Molten Salt Fast Reactor by 2018 and at optimizing its design features as well as its operating parameters by 2030. The general conclusion is that the Molten Salt Fast-neutron Reactor (MSFR), if proved feasible, could be a promising long-term alternative to solid-fuelled fast neutron reactors, well suited specifically for a closed thorium fuel cycle.

Amazing that they still haven't "got the memo" that the whole point of thorium is to be able to use a thermal spectrum MSR and avoid the fuel fabrication.

You can lead the horse to water but you sure can't make them drink.

Translated to bureaucratese:

You can point out a superior option but you can't get a bureaucracy to admit that they were investing resources less than optimally.

Undoubtly the SNETP public consultation results are great success of the thorium power proponents. However the consultation is not an end in itself but an item on the SNETP agenda. SNETP plans for the coming months include

On the NC2I I wrote in the "Poland pursues IV Gen reactors R&D" thread.

We should be not only watching what's in the pipeline of the NC2I initiative but maybe it is the right time the EfT community take proactive contact with the the Polish NCBJ National Centre for Nuclear Research. This autumn NCBJ most probably will be coordinating international NC2I team reseaching co-generation of electric energy and process heat.

In my opinion the NC2I is very promissing area in which the thorium molten salt reactors have chance to be implemented.

The Molten Salt ReactorNevertheless, specific technological challenges must still be addressed and a safety approach must be established before these MSFR reactors can become a reality. As a consequence, the annex discusses the R&D needed on: structural materials, fuel salt chemistry and properties, fuel salt clean-up, and system design, operation and safety.

Amazing that they still haven't "got the memo" that the whole point of thorium is to be able to use a thermal spectrum MSR and avoid the fuel fabrication.

You can lead the horse to water but you sure can't make them drink.

Translated to bureaucratese:

You can point out a superior option but you can't get a bureaucracy to admit that they were investing resources less than optimally.

As it is a European initiative, they will most likely have asked for research results and conclusions of various European researchers. In this case it is most likely that the French have recommended research on fast spectrum reactors.

As to your remark....they are actually quite right. The MSR reactor doesn't have a safety approach that takes into account the specifics of the liquid fuel. And as long as there is no decent safety demonstration, no MSRs will be build.

So translated into engineering terms: "stop complaining and do some science"

_________________Liking All Nuclear Systems, But Looking At Them Through Dark And Critical Glasses.

To be fair to the French program, they did look at different spectra and found a few advantages to a faster spectrum that they liked:

1. Better plutonium utilisation2. Slower reprocessing possible3. Better (more negative) reactivity feedbacks from lack of graphite in the core4. Longer core life with no graphite in it

The advantages of fast spectrum sound too much like my own thinking on the subject. It may be that they as well as I are both correct.That being the case, I. as a good Indian, thought of ways to increase the use of thorium while retaining the fast fission bonus of uranium. The advantages of thorium are:-a. Higher conversion to fissile as a result of higher absorption cross section for neutrons.b. Superiority of U-233 as a fissile fuel component. You require less of U-233 in a fuel as compared to U-235 or Pu-239.My thinking brought out a 'hybrid' reactor arrangements. The main parts are:-1. Have a uranium fueled fast MSR reactor core.2. Have a reflector/blanket jacket of solid metallic thorium balls and water. Electro-refine it periodically to recover U-233 as soon as it reaches an optimum value of 1.3-1.4%. Do not wait for it to burn in situ.3. When sufficient U-233 has been created, use it with depleted uranium in the core.How do the experts like it?

To be fair to the French program, they did look at different spectra and found a few advantages to a faster spectrum that they liked:

1. Better plutonium utilisation2. Slower reprocessing possible3. Better (more negative) reactivity feedbacks from lack of graphite in the core4. Longer core life with no graphite in it

The advantages of fast spectrum sound too much like my own thinking on the subject. It may be that they as well as I are both correct.That being the case, I. as a good Indian, thought of ways to increase the use of thorium while retaining the fast fission bonus of uranium. The advantages of thorium are:-a. Higher conversion to fissile as a result of higher absorption cross section for neutrons.b. Superiority of U-233 as a fissile fuel component. You require less of U-233 in a fuel as compared to U-235 or Pu-239.My thinking brought out a 'hybrid' reactor arrangements. The main parts are:-1. Have a uranium fueled fast MSR reactor core.2. Have a reflector/blanket jacket of solid metallic thorium balls and water. Electro-refine it periodically to recover U-233 as soon as it reaches an optimum value of 1.3-1.4%. Do not wait for it to burn in situ.3. When sufficient U-233 has been created, use it with depleted uranium in the core.How do the experts like it?

Water near 650C core is not a good idea. Water anywhere inside the reactor in any significant quantity provides the means to expand rapidly and greatly under accident conditions. One of the great safety features of most LFTR designs is that there is no steam expansion, and nothing that likes to burn so during an accident there is little to fear except the financial loss of a reactor.

I unfortunately can only answer when I have some time available to think and write. Now thus...It isn't necessarily the systems that are lacking, it is the demonstration that they are all effective. For liquid fuel there are several aspects:

1. The fact that the fuel is liquid means greater mobility of the fission products, thus the transfer of these products should be evaluated, as to be within legal limits. 2. The pump trip accident (ULOF) is comparable to a large reactivity injection, the response of the entire system should be evaluated and check whether the response is within safety limits.3. Define acceptable safety limits.4. ....

You can say that there are no hazards for liquid fuel, and that's an argumentation that works for lobbying or for convincing the masses. However a safety authority will ask for an in-depth scientific demonstration.

_________________Liking All Nuclear Systems, But Looking At Them Through Dark And Critical Glasses.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum